Jayant Nath, J.

IA No. 10766/2012 (u/O 12 R 6 CPC)

1. This is an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by the plaintiff seeking a judgment on admission. The accompanying plaint is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of possession in respect of eastern part of ground floor of property bearing No.10, Jor Bagh, New Delhi comprising of eastern shop, an office block, a mezzanine over the office block, a toilet, courtyard at the back and concerned verandah with a display window and also western portion of the ground floor of the said property. Other consequential reliefs are also being sought.

2. As per the Plaint the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the said property No.10, Block-172, Jor Bagh Market, New Delhi. The said property is stated to have been purchased from the erstwhile owner Smt.Neeta Mehra on 14.8.2006. Based on these documents a registered conveyance deed was executed by NDMC on 12.10.2009 in favour of the plaintiff.

3. Defendant No.1 had entered into an unregistered agreement of lease dated 21.11.1999 with the erstwhile owner Smt.Neeta Mehra with respect to 45% area of the said property which is falling on the eastern part. The Agreement to lease was to commence with effect from 18.11.1999 and is also stated to have expired on 28.2.2011. It is stated that defendants paid the entire rent for the lease period of 11 year 11 months amounting to Rs. 4,39,224/-. The actual payment was made after deduction of TDS of Rs.65,884/-. It is further averred that as per the Agreement to lease the rent was fixed at Rs. 2,650/- per month and the rent was to be enhanced by 10% after every three years. Hence, it is stated that with effect from 17.11.2002 the rent went upto Rs. 2,915/-. Thereafter with effect from 17.11.2005 the rent is stated to have gone upto Rs. 3,207/-. It is further stated that from 17.11.2008 the rent has gone upto Rs. 3,527/-. It is further stated that if the said amount of Rs. 4,39,224 is bifurcated for 11 year 11 months then it would be in accordance with the calculation of rent as stated by the plaintiff after the necessary enhancement of 10% after every three years. There is a small difference of Rs. 13 in these calculations.

4. It is further averred that the said agreement of lease being an unregistered document, the tenancy of the defendants was on month to month basis. Further, as the rent of the premises with effect from 17.11.2008 stood enhanced to Rs.3,527/- per month, after 17.11.2008 the tenancy stood governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

5. It is stated that the plaintiff terminated the month to month tenancy of the tenant by giving notice dated 3.5.2010 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and that the tenancy stands terminated with effect from midnight of intervening 17/18th June, 2010.

6. It is stated that defendant instead of complying with the terms of the said legal notice dated 3.5.2010 sent a reply dated 30.6.2010 where the contentions of the plaintiff have been denied. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present Suit for possession, mesne profit and damages.

7. It is further averred that certain portions of the western portion have been illegally occupied by the defendant. Hence, relief for possession to the said effect has also been sought.

8. The present application is filed urging that the written statement has clear admissions to the following effect that:-

(a) the defendant is a tenant of the eastern portion of the premises.

(b) they were served with legal notice for termination of tenancy.

(c) they have admitted that they were inducted by virtue of unregistered Agreement of lease dated 21.11.1999.

(d) that they have admitted that Rs. 4,39,224/- was paid after deduction of TDS as advance rent for a period of 11 year 11 months and that the initial rent of Rs.2,650/- was to be increased at the rate of 10% every three years.

It is further stated that the defendants have also filed on record the ledger account which support the fact that payme